Idaho Woman Attacked by Wolf

Off Topic
221

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Wolf attack, kill and eat Alaska jogger: hunt planned by plane and on foot for deadly pack

I really enjoyed this pearl of wisdom [cough]:

"To me, it’s a pretty bogus issue although I know it strikes at the heart strings of a lot of people who want to be macho and go out there and kill animals,’ said John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, told the KTVA television channel.’

“Shooting at wolves will make them more desperate, he predicted. ‘They become far more likely to go into towns, to frequent trails, to become problem wolves,’ he said.”

Oh boy.[/quote]

There’s a guy who sounds like he couldn’t tell which is the business end of a gun.
[/quote]

Why do people like this have to be running conservation groups? Why not, oh I don’t know, somebody with some common sense and hunting background?[/quote]

A lot of the conservation groups that do by far the most good are run by the type of person that you speak of. However, those people are not the ones who shout irrational ideologies whatever hilltop they can find because they really don’t have any clue how to actually conserve anything.

222

“The chilling attack - the first fatal wolf encounter on record in the state”

“They were just doing what wolves do. Their nature happened to kill my daughter but I don’t have any anger towards wolves,” said Mr Berner.

“The state’s Department of Fish and Game and state troopers now plan to launch an aerial hunt for the wolves using a helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, but were yesterday waiting for snowstorms to clear.”

Seems pretty extreme considering it’s the first time it’s ever happened.

224

http://www.huntingreport.com/hunting_article_details.cfm?id=1549

http://juneauempire.com/stories/051408/reg_278902314.shtml

Seems that hunters are more dangerous to people in Alaska than wolves.

225

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
“The chilling attack - the first fatal wolf encounter on record in the state”

“They were just doing what wolves do. Their nature happened to kill my daughter but I don’t have any anger towards wolves,” said Mr Berner.

“The state’s Department of Fish and Game and state troopers now plan to launch an aerial hunt for the wolves using a helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, but were yesterday waiting for snowstorms to clear.”

Seems pretty extreme considering it’s the first time it’s ever happened. [/quote]

I agree. The number of human deaths ought to be well into the hundreds before any wolves are eradicated. After all when it comes to daughters…easy come, easy go. You can always find you another one.[/quote]

I’m not saying it isn’t a tragedy. The woman’s father even stated he’s not angry with the wolves.

Should we clear the oceans of sharks while we’re at it?

228

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
“The chilling attack - the first fatal wolf encounter on record in the state”

“They were just doing what wolves do. Their nature happened to kill my daughter but I don’t have any anger towards wolves,” said Mr Berner.

“The state’s Department of Fish and Game and state troopers now plan to launch an aerial hunt for the wolves using a helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft, but were yesterday waiting for snowstorms to clear.”

Seems pretty extreme considering it’s the first time it’s ever happened. [/quote]

I agree. The number of human deaths ought to be well into the hundreds before any wolves are eradicated. After all when it comes to daughters…easy come, easy go. You can always find you another one.[/quote]

I’m not saying it isn’t a tragedy. The woman’s father even stated he’s not angry with the wolves.

Should we clear the oceans of sharks while we’re at it?
[/quote]

As long as victims’ fathers absolve the predator of “wrong” should we abandon good sense?

If the first Gacy’s victims’ dad had publicly stated that Gacy was a psychopath and therefore incapable of determing “wrong” should the manhunt for him have been called off?

If your daughter had been the one killed by the wolves would’ve you have shrugged your shoulders with a “Oh well, that’s the way the ball bounces” sentiment?
[/quote]

I don’t think it is good sense. Taking to the sky to find the pack responsible for the woman’s death isn’t going to have tangible results. They will kill a bunch of wolves, the public will have it’s vengeance, and everyone will feel safer.

Mission accomplished.

230

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

I don’t think it is good sense. Taking to the sky to find the pack responsible for the woman’s death isn’t going to have tangible results. They will kill a bunch of wolves, the public will have it’s vengeance, and everyone will feel safer.

Mission accomplished.

[/quote]

Killing a bunch of wolves in the area where the woman was killed would most certainly have a tangible result. It would tangibly result in the deaths of the wolves most likely to have killed the woman. Yes, that would be vengeance; it would also reduce the likelihood that those wolves would prey on more joggers, bakers and candlestick makers from that village.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

If a pack of dogs in your neighborhood had attacked and killed your daughter and I showed up with my ultralight and shotgun and patrolled and killed as many dogs running loose in a pack as I could would you honest to God look me in the eye and utter, “There are no tangible results of your actions, Push”?

You sound like the nuthouse wolf advocate mentioned earlier that claimed that the more you shoot at wolves the more likely they are to attack humans.[/quote]

Push, this is an unprecedented incident. It’s not a crisis. We can play the “what if it was your daughter” game over and over and it’s the same argument the anti-gun crowd is screaming. This happened ONCE.

You are more likely to be killed by another hunter participating in the wolf hunt than by a wolf.

231

If we kill ALL the wolves (ban all guns) then nobody will every be killed by a wolf (gun) ever again. Brilliant.

232

[quote]Aggv wrote:
If we kill ALL the wolves (ban all guns) then nobody will every be killed by a wolf (gun) ever again. Brilliant. [/quote]

Oh my…

Bears and cougars will dominate the statistics…

233

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
If we kill ALL the wolves (ban all guns) then nobody will every be killed by a wolf (gun) ever again. Brilliant. [/quote]

Oh my…

Bears and cougars will dominate the statistics…[/quote]

Better kill all them too, in fact, let’s kill every predatory animal on the planet so nobody’s daughter gets killed. Including the animals in the zoo, you know, just in case they get out or some dumbass women drops her kid in the cage again.

234

Only wolf I’ve ever been interested in is the wolf of wall-street.

Shout out to Leo.

235

If your daughter is killed by lightning are you going to shoot the clouds? Haven’t we learned from Ahab?

236

I’m with Varqs post from a while back that we’re hard wired to kill other predators in our area. We do it, other predators do it, we’re just as much a part of nature as anything else- no better, no worse.

238

Capiche? Stick to English even though you aren’t much better with it.

239

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

I don’t think it is good sense. Taking to the sky to find the pack responsible for the woman’s death isn’t going to have tangible results. They will kill a bunch of wolves, the public will have it’s vengeance, and everyone will feel safer.

Mission accomplished.

[/quote]

Killing a bunch of wolves in the area where the woman was killed would most certainly have a tangible result. It would tangibly result in the deaths of the wolves most likely to have killed the woman. Yes, that would be vengeance; it would also reduce the likelihood that those wolves would prey on more joggers, bakers and candlestick makers from that village.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

If a pack of dogs in your neighborhood had attacked and killed your daughter and I showed up with my ultralight and shotgun and patrolled and killed as many dogs running loose in a pack as I could would you honest to God look me in the eye and utter, “There are no tangible results of your actions, Push”?

You sound like the nuthouse wolf advocate mentioned earlier that claimed that the more you shoot at wolves the more likely they are to attack humans.[/quote]

Push, this is an unprecedented incident. It’s not a crisis. We can play the “what if it was your daughter” game over and over and it’s the same argument the anti-gun crowd is screaming. This happened ONCE.

[/quote]

I agree.

Also, it’s not a crisis if we were to kill all the wolves in an area where a wolf-on-human attack had just occurred – especially in a state that has thousands upon thousands of wolves whose numbers are not even remotely endangered.

Capiche?

I daresay you would be one of the last people to venture out of that village unarmed while you packed that precious, reassuring, fabricated li’l ol’ statistic around in your head.

If you made it as far as the blood-stained spot in the snow where the woman was consumed I think you’d high-tail straight back to your comfortable little wifi equipped cabin, reluctant to confess to us how ashamed you were that you could go no further.
[/quote]

I don’t see how the stat is fabricated. According to the article, this is the first incident of a fatal wolf attack in the state. In a previous post I referenced several fatal hunting accidents. Since there were several fatal hunting accidents VS the one wolf attack, it’s fair to say hunters are more lethal to humans in Alaska than wolves. This is irrefutable.

That’s quite an assumption to make about me considering we’ve never met.

Also, your support of the knee-jerk reaction by the state is out of character.